Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) Petitioners Rana Ranjeet Singh and Ratnakar Tripathi filed this writ petition with the prayer to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Regulation framed and printed for the Sessions 2000-2001 to the extent of Clause 18, which imposes the limitation of 5 years in completing the course of M.C.A. of students of B.H.U. and further seeking a direction that the respondents be direction that the respondents be directed not to implement the aforesaid rules, Annexure-13 to the writ petition.
(2.) The respondents were directed to file counter-affidavit. They have filed counter-affidavit to which the petitioners have filed rejoinder affidavit. Under the interim order dated 28.2.2001 passed by this Court, which runs as under :- "Hon'ble V.M. Sahai, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to appear in back paper examination of M.C.A. scheduled to start from 14.3.2001, after permitting the petitioner to fill his form to deposit his fee etc. and the University shall issue admit card to the petitioner. Dated: 28.2.2001. Sd./ V.M. Sahai, J." The petitioner were directed to appear in the back paper for the M.C.A. examination scheduled to start on 14.3.2001 and the petitioners further prayed vide application dated 5.7.2001 moved on their behalf that the respondents. University authority be directed to declare the result of the petitioners and if required they may also be given permission to appear in IInd Examination of M.C.A. (HI) as per University Ordinance and further the University authority be directed to issue forms for second examination scheduled to start from 20.7.2001 and the form may be accepted without any prejudice to right and claim of the petitioners. The stand taken by the University in the counter-affidavit is that at the time when the petitioners were admitted in their respective course, there was no time limit prescribed for completing the course of M.C.A. as the Regulations in Ordinances were not framed. They were, however, framed and granted approval by the Executive Committee. The University relied upon the Clause 18 (i), which runs as follows : "The students admitted to MCA course shall be required to clear the course within five years from the year they were admitted". Since the petitioners who were admitted in the said course in the year 1994-95 their five years tenure will come to an end in the year 1999-2000 and, therefore, they cannot be permitted to appear in M.C.A. examination. Petitioners have appended the Information Bulletin containing the necessary and important information of the candidates for the Session 1994-95 in which the petitioners took admission and the petitioners have also appended the Information Bulletin for the Sessions 1995-96 and 1996-97.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the University submitted that it is correct that at the time when the petitioners were admitted, no time limit was prescribed. The ordinances with regard to Master of Computer Application course were not framed and in normal course students in the University in a course like Master of Computer application is six years but later on Regulations were framed which were approved by the Executive Council finally w.e.f. 1996-97 and onwards as mentioned in Annexure-CA 3 of the counter-affidavit of Lal Babu Lal. In view of the aforesaid fact, the contention of learned Counsel for the University Sri V.K. Upadhya that these Ordinances should have been deemed to govern the petitioners admission cannot be accepted. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the cases reported in (1990) 3 UPLBEC 1955 : 1988 (Supp.) SCC 740; 1988 UPLBEC 1066; 1987 (Vol. 3) SCC 622 and 1983 (Vol. 3) SCC 284. In view of the aforesaid cases the vested right that is accrued to the petitioners when the admission in M.C.A. to complete the same within a period of six years cannot be taken away by the University and particularly in view of the amended Resolution of the Executive Council by which the principal Ordinances for the Session 1996-97 and onwards clearly indicate that these Regulations did not apply to the petitioners admission.;